Wikipedia talk:WikiProject National Register of Historic Places/Archive 18

src: upload.wikimedia.org

Video Wikipedia talk:WikiProject National Register of Historic Places/Archive 18

Problem exporting coordinates as GeoRSS

When I clicked "Export coordinate microformation as GeoRSS" in Register Registered Historic Site in Contra Costa County, California, it returns "No Geo Point found". I know I have done this before with a list of other Registered Historical Sites. It should bring up a window asking me to save the file. All other links under "Map of all coordinates" work as expected. The "Export interest point as KML" link works, but when I use it, the link does not retain the name label for each location when I import the coordinates into Google Maps. Is there someone else out there who tried the link that failed for me and see if you get the same thing? thanks. --Sanfranman59 (talk) 19:29, October 6, 2008 (UTC)

Maps Wikipedia talk:WikiProject National Register of Historic Places/Archive 18

Naming list naming proposal based on style and style suggestions

After hundreds of NRHP articles, I finally got to my first "House At..." article this week, House at 3 Crown Street. I know we have written some of them (Apartment Building at 2225 N Street, Commercial Building on 32 West Bridge Street, to quote some non-home examples). In one case (South Park Lofts), I changed its name to one after the name of the developer chose it. And I think we should try doing that kind of thing if possible. But that's none of my business here.

I have complained elsewhere about some of the overly noble editors' devotion to the NPS naming convention (I'm pretty sure that most churches do not include "Complex" or "... And Rectory" in their official name, and there's no reason for it we use it because our church articles should be the same as the church as the building). And here, for the list of "BUILDING TYPE" format properties in NUMBER STREET ", we have to go a bit further and divide as" BUILDING TYPE in NUMBER STREET, CITY, STATE ".

Therefore, "House on 3 Crown Street" will be "House on 3 Crown Street, Nelsonville, New York" and so on. I prefer commas to use than brackets because after all, the title of the article is location , not the exact name. Using parentheses will imply the latter, and coma works equally well for disambiguation, if any, say, two "Fully Landed Lots on 123 Main Street" registered in that country.

I think we need to do this. First, there may be many Mahkota Paths (et al) in the English-speaking world. Does everyone should know this one in a small village in the Hudson Valley? And without the city in the title, it looks like the kind of article people used to be a joke in the early days, when they knew it would end up in BJAODN, when we had BJAODN ("The tree in my parents' backyard" is one) funny that involves some notes posted on the door of a Finnish apartment complex). So, what do others think?

FWIW I systematically changed its name to NUMBER STREET when I found them. As far as I know, the only building class in WP that is often unknown with the official name is the skyscraper, and no one ever thinks of giving a title other than their civil address (except for the case when they were made as RHP), so I do not simply see what's adding (very awkwardly, IMHO) specific at the beginning would be very useful for (besides following the NPS). Circeus (talk) 07:56, October 5, 2008 (UTC)

We use a name like 500 Fifth Avenue for an article about the building that has been named by the owner/developer, or acquired through extensive popular use .

I also feel that it is better for this article, which claims the only thing for notability is the list of NRHP, to have the type of property included in the name. "The house on 3 Crown Street" makes it clear that the house itself is what matters, not, say, a garden or garage warehouse separated (Compare to a list that includes one or more outbuildings (or something else, such as the remains of the foundation of the previous house, or the old well or the stone wall, as a contributing resource.) I seem to try not to include this based on the address). Daniel Case (talk) 20:52, October 5, 2008 (UTC)

(not rigid) While Bulletin 16a does not specifically state that capital letters are used, all the examples they provide all have capital letters. Regardless, once you've created a name for what you nominate, it becomes the title - and it should be written in title capitalization. Once in NRHP, it's not "anything" at 123 Fake Street, but THE "House at 123 Fake Street". Einbierbitte (talk) 20:34, October 7, 2008 (UTC)

Some thoughts: I've found that there is a naming convention: X Island, Florida is a settlement, while X Island (Florida)]] is a geographical feature. Likewise the churches in the US are usually Church of Christ (City and State), while settling the Church of Christ, the State. The English do it differently, eg. Church of Christ, Paddington, with or without commas. They do not have 50 countries to worry about or the number of places we have. Also I think NRHP is deliberately registering Homes on 39 Main Street instead of 39 Main Street homes. The initial number does not list or aphabetize very well. Why put the city and country after it if no one else from the same address? If you put the city and declare it to be in parentheses. If you can find a more specific name for House on 39 Main Street, continue and use it with a redirect from House at 39 Main Street. clariosophic (talk) 21:12, October 7, 2008 (UTC)

I believe that in this case, since the title is descriptive of the location, a comma should be used (Note that the neighborhoods in the cities (Chelsea, Manhattan and Chelsea, London, for example) use comas instead of braces Daniel Case ( talk) 20:24, October 8, 2008 (UTC)

I believe that the NRHP name is the proper noun. I would imagine that a rather bleak (for me) difference made here would discourage refined beginners for using the title of the NRHP documentation when creating a new article. Indeed I am a non-English speaking number person, but it does not make sense to me to say that the NRHP title for a property is not a proper noun. And if you have to be an English major to understand this and contribute well, then I imagine there will be many of us who will not be here. Lvklock (talk) 18:27, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Orlady says it's up even better than I can. I will only restate my position: a surname entered through on the proper quality of the noun; a property only known by its address is not. NPS naming convention exists for its purpose, not always ours. "The Roman Catholic Church of St. Ignatius" does not automatically become the "Rukun and St. Ignatius Roman Catholic Church Complex" when it is listed on the List because of that NPS decides to include it. Daniel Case (talk) 20:24, October 8, 2008 (UTC)

The reason we write articles is because of their membership on this list, which bestows uncertainty, therefore it makes sense to me that the name of the list should be our name, including the relevant capitalization. Membership on the list makes it famous, but we thought the list name was wrong? All this will make me think twice to make one of these articles because this difference does not make sense to me and I will not spend time looking for this conversation whenever I find one to try to find out. Visible contribution contribution. Just my opinion alone. Lvklock (talk) 21:34, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

src: upload.wikimedia.org

Calvary_Episcopal_Church_.28Louisville.2C_Kentucky.29 "> Calvary Episcopal Church (Louisville, Kentucky)

Can not find the corresponding removal sort, if any, for the project but courtesy is up - this is the current NRHP property in AFD TravelingFari 22 : 09, October 3, 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for improving it here. There is no other deletion sorting place in wp: NRHP, as there are for some other projects. And the article survived by AfD. doncram (talk) 19:56, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

src: upload.wikimedia.org

request to move to William Aiken House and Associated Railroad Structures

I have requested the replacement of William Aiken House and associated railway structure back to William Aiken House and Associated Railroad Structures. This is the NHL in South Carolina. Please join the discussion on the talk page.

My purpose is stated on wp: Requesting move: "To restore the use of the official NHL and NRHP program names for historical districts, look for broader inputs because of several opinions that seem to differ in wp: NRHP". doncram (talk) 20:49, October 7, 2008 (UTC)

This is not a way to reach the decision I expect, but I myself just over-rode the previous step, restore the official name of "William Aiken House and Associated Railroad Structures?", even though there is NO into consensus reached, for the reasons stated in my closing statement on the Talk page. Perhaps none of the participants wanted to acknowledge their mistakes, but no serious alternative was put forward. I have (hopefully) closed the discussion, fearing that it would be worse to try to "force" people to surrender.

Pennyspender, non-NRHP-regular, commented (politely in my view) about the wish by some NRHPers to use non-official non-capital names:

I'm not sure this issue has been thought of. For example, if you think the title should follow WP: MOS over convention used by NRHP, then it should be Ashley River's historic district, not the Ashley River Historic District, or Robert Brewton's house instead of Robert Brewton House. Thus, people who say that the Related Rail Structures should not be contracted against themselves unless they change any title that capitalizes the words "home," "residence," "property," etc. (With the exception of historic sites that have become museums or sights under some widely formalized or widely accepted capitalization name (such as William Blacklock House which has been officially named by the College of Charleston here).

I personally do not want to open all 15,000 NRHP articles for re-listing for reasons not well thought out. Hope this is read and considered. doncram (talk) 04:22, October 13, 2008 (UTC)

This argument is all or nothing, the corresponding rail structure is the correct noun and not just official nonsense is what you say. I say it's official nonsense. The widely accepted convention establishes historic homes with word houses in their titles as proper nouns, similar to historic districts. Not so much for the associated railway structure. --IvoShandor (talk) 05:15, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

src: upload.wikimedia.org

Ask to move to The Hermitage (Tennessee)

I've asked to move to The Hermitage (Tennessee), NHL in Tennessee. See the talk page. doncram (talk) 21:03, October 7, 2008 (UTC)

This one was completed by Hunster by moving the article to an alternate name of The Hermitage (Nashville, Tennessee). Some additional information provided by some about local places with Hermitage in their name is helpful in achieving this solution. doncram (talk) 04:26, October 13, 2008 (UTC)

src: upload.wikimedia.org

NRHPs in the news

[1]

I need to have an article done at the end of the day;) Murderbike 22:18, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

src: upload.wikimedia.org

Adler Planetarium

You may have noticed one of our "sites" in this week's news-Adler Planetarium.-- Appraiser (speak) 18:28, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Overhead projector! That's one overhead projector. --IvoShandor (talk) 09:07, October 10, 2008 (UTC)

It would be nice if Obama could say something like, "investing $ 1 per child going to the planetarium over the next 20 years is money well spent in the pursuit of educating the next generation in science." --Appraiser (talk) 15:04, October 10, 2008 (UTC)

I also thought about that one. --IvoShandor (talk) 18:21, October 17, 2008 (UTC)

Obama should have read here, before a $ 3 million projector appeared in the last debate, too, I think when I saw McCain repeat it. doncram (talk) 02:43, October 19, 2008 (UTC)

src: upload.wikimedia.org

16 Newly appointed NHLs! feel free to chip

16 new NHL has been set! See Interior Designing 16 New National Historic Sites. I was notified by edits to draft sandbox for Forty Acres article. The Department of Internal Affairs is here.

The sandbox draft for many of these, previously started, is indexed on Wikipedia: WikiProject National Register of Historic Places/NHLs2008sandbox.

Please edit these sandbox articles and move them to the main room when ready. Hopefully this should all be developed up to 150 words or whatever DYK requirements, and be prepared for DYK immediately (though not necessarily all for the same day!). doncram (talk) 04:57, October 17, 2008 (UTC)

Hurray for the Guggenheim Museum! --IvoShandor (talk) 05:12, October 17, 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. Should we replace the infobox for that? ---- DanTD (talk) 23:59, October 18, 2008 (UTC)

Weekly List for October 17 has been registered! Einbierbitte (talk) 20:05, October 17, 2008 (UTC)

src: upload.wikimedia.org

Happy birthday, wikiproject NRHP!

Two years, since Ebyabe created a wikiproyek page.... 15,526 articles, 25 of which are featured, 527 of which are article lists. doncram (speak) 17:27, October 17, 2008 (UTC)

Hurray for WP: NRHP. Thank you Ebyabe! Woot! How much do we get don? --IvoShandor (talk) 18:20, October 17, 2008 (UTC)

Very cool! Lvklock (talk) 18:26, October 17, 2008 (UTC)

We have accomplished many things in those two years. Huzzah! Einbierbitte (talk) 20:10, October 17, 2008 (UTC)

There are 66 GAs in automatic counting on the wp: NRHP page. Although I hope that I and other wp: NRHPers will develop a group of GAs and FA and FL in the future, many or probably most of the GAs and FA that appear in automated calculations to date have more to wp credits: SHIPS or other editor groups. As a group, we have generated tremendous amounts of excellent work even though it has not been generally recognized, in our list of articles and a large number of short articles made. But I think perhaps the greatest achievement of wp: NRHP has so far empowered a diverse group of individuals to become productive wikipedia writers, editors, and photographers. doncram (talk) 00:01, October 18, 2008 (UTC)

src: upload.wikimedia.org

Region-level split

(Bad) Hmm, sorry I did not follow your question at first. To get Lincoln County Courthouse (Wyoming) coordinates, or other NRHP sites, you can use individual NRHP infobox generators. That will include them. I was discussing it with you a few days ago on your talk page, although I did not emphasize that the coordinates are part of the info provided if you're going to use a generator, rather than creating your own infobox from scratch or from copying from another. article. There are several sites where the NRIS system does not provide coordinates, in which case your method is to find some, if it works properly. And, the coordinates provided by NRIS are often few, in part because they are collected under the geological survey system used for USGS contour maps, etc., before the current GPS system, is very accurate (which moves some places as far as 40 yards or so). doncram (talk) 21:55, October 19, 2008 (UTC)

Since many coordinates for the older list are improper, I prefer to use TerraServer air photos and get such coordinates. Einbierbitte (talk) 22:58, October 19, 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the reminder; I understand that I can be more clear about this, because I know that the Ohio list all have a coord, and I (as you understand it correctly) ask more about non-tableised districts. I thought I'd go ahead and make Coshocton County, at least, tonight. Nyttend (talk) 03:51, October 20, 2008 (UTC)

src: upload.wikimedia.org

NRHP Lists on the National List display properties in AFD

I am angry that one of the wp: NRHP/editor members has posted a list of NHRP articles to be deleted, even though I am asking not to be taken in that direction. Assistance in handling this will be appreciated on Wikipedia: Articles for deletion/List of National Historic Sites display properties and districts. doncram (talk) 01:57, October 20, 2008 (UTC)

src: upload.wikimedia.org

Next NHL spin

The Park Service has a page for the next round of possible NHL movements (8 new ones and one withdrawal which I think is not controversial; the articles we have in it already reflect the reason why).

Most of this in the West and Midwest at present:

• Richard Alsop IV House, Middletown, CT. Already registered as Alsop House. Articles need photos.
• Christ Church Lutheran, Minneapolis. NHL nom mentioned in the article. Can we get contemporary color photos?
Ludlow Tent Colony Site, Ludlow, CO. I have long felt the location of this famous episode in American labor history deserves NHL status. No articles yet, even on the List.
• Aldo Leopold Shack and Farm, Fairfield and Lewiston, WI. Already registered as Aldo Leopold Shack. No articles yet.
• Miami Circle at Brickell Point Site, Miami, FL. The article is on "Miami Circle". No photos yet, although one of them is possible after NHL determination, based on the article.
Alfred Newton Richards Laboratory of Medical Research and David Goddard Laboratories Building, Philadelphia. Apparently it has not been listed previously. I wonder if we will be able to find a shorter title... it's two buildings in Penn, known colloquially as Goddard and Richards buildings. But it looks like we do not have an article yet.
• Sage Memorial Hospital School of Nursing, Ganado, AZ. Not yet registered, and no articles about even the hospital.
• Steedman Estate/Casa del Herrero, Santa Barbara, CA. It's already registered, and we have an article but somehow from the radar of this project. Requires images and infobox.

Possible NHL withdrawals:

• Florence Mills House, New York. As reported articles, it is the wrong house.

I'm sure we can get what we need for this long before the appointment is lowered. Daniel Case (talk) 17:58, October 22, 2008 (UTC)

I added a Christ Church Lutheran (Minneapolis) color image, but I'm not sure I really like the photo. I photographed it in the afternoon, so the colors look a bit bright. If I get a chance, I might go there again this weekend and see if I can take photos that I like better. --Elkman ^(Elkspeak) 23:58, October 22, 2008 (UTC)

src: upload.wikimedia.org

More stuff Elkman

Today, I use the Elkman link mentioned above to create a table for a specific country across the country, only to find out that it's not very up-to-date: the Gove County, Kansas listing only covers one place, though the edit summary of Sanfranman59 seems to say that there are others. The place in Gove County (a granary) was registered six months ago. Does anyone know (1) how up-to-date this generator is, and (2) where can I get missing information for this building from another source, see that I do not know the address? Nyttend (talk) 17:01, October 23, 2008 (UTC)

The database where I got my question (on this link) was last updated on April 15, 2008. They are not really punctual to update it at any time, but every time I see an update, I will update my copy of the database. In the meantime, missing information can be collected from the National Register of NRHP weekly lists. --Elkman ^(Elkspeak) 17:13, October 23, 2008 (UTC)

The warehouse is on the Weekly List from April 25, 2008. Einbierbitte (talk) 19:54, October 23, 2008 (UTC)

Funny, to comment on User Talk: Nyttend I also started looking at the NPS weekly list, working backwards from the latest in the index. I gave up half way. Either you are lucky and start with advanced, or you should see many of them! Ã, :) doncram (talk) 21:13, October 23, 2008 (UTC)

I have a lot of patience :). I work backwards from the latest date on the Kansas list, and just scan it until I find it. It really is not that difficult. Einbierbitte (talk) 00:12, October 25, 2008 (UTC)

Interestingly, this week's list (October 24) has a lot of Kansas in it! Einbierbitte (talk) 00:21, October 25, 2008 (UTC)

src: upload.wikimedia.org

USS Arizona (shipwreck) Join Discussion

In making a USS Arizona article (shipwreck), I try to stay focused on the accident itself (which is the NHL) rather than the USS Arizona Memorial around it (which is the NRHP). There is a joint proposal that essentially boils down to "they look like the same thing". In the end, I'm not too worried about this, but think others may want to weigh. Dm (talk) 03:03, October 25, 2008 (UTC)

src: upload.wikimedia.org

Name for category

FYI on discussion CfD

Wikiproject participants who do not monitor WP: CfD may not be aware that some RHP categories "related Railways" and "Related infrastructure" for discussion there, at Wikipedia: Categories for discussion/Log/2008 October 8 # Category: Registered Registered Historic Sites in Railways and Wikipedia: Categories for discussion/Log/2008 October 8 # Category: Registered Historic Places Related to Infrastructure, respectively. --Orlady (talk) 00:36, October 11, 2008 (UTC)

This has been closed with a new name "Related List X on National Historic Site List". Daniel Case (talk) 08:33, October 15, 2008 (UTC)

Name discussion for geographic category

Now significant progress has been made in renaming the "List of Registered Historic Places in" articles to the list of "National Historic Site Listings", it's time to see if we have a consensus on how to change the names of various "RHP" related categories. This is discussed on Wikipedia: The WikiProject National Register of Historic Places/NRHP changed the name of the proposal, but it is fair to say that the discussion did not end with a consensus. IMO, it would be productive to discuss this here before taking the proposal to WP: CfD.

Here are three proposals to get started:

• Category: List of Historic Sites Listed by country

• Rename to Category: List by State List List of National Historic Sites. It uses the plural noun "list" that we use in the title of the listing article and avoids the awkwardness (and possibly ambiguity) of "List of National Historic Places by Country."

• Category: Historic Sites Listed by US insular areas

• Rename it to Category: National Historic Site List by United States insular area. This will be consistent with Category: National Register of Historic Places by state.

Support - Appraisers (speak) 15:29, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

• Category: Historic Sites Listed in Alabama

• Rename to Category: List of National Historic Places in Alabama. Because the category will contain article lists and articles about individual properties, it does not seem necessary to define the content more narrowly.

--Orlady (talk) 00:36, October 11, 2008 (UTC)

Support this - Valuers (talk) 15:29, October 15, 2008 (UTC)

I like the last two, which to me is really one (the term "territory of the United States" is, I'm sure, made to include territory and such). Daniel Case (talk) 03:41, October 11, 2008 (UTC)

I like the last two too, but I think the first does not sound right. I have no alternative suggestions, because that particular description seems to be the only match. Are there any bots or semi-automated processes that can be used to update article categories after CfD? I only ask because each country seems to have a range of 125 to 600 articles in each of the "Registered Historical Areas in _____" category, which is much more than most CfD candidates. Altairisfar _talk 06: 25, October 14, 2008 (UTC)

The task of updating a category after renaming is something that bots often do. They seem to be good at this task. --Orlady (talk) 15:49, October 14, 2008 (UTC)

In the view of support (lack of opposition) here, I've been "by remote region" and "... Place on..." proposal to WP: CfD, but I admit that I have not finished marking all "in the __ County category for some state (Help bots needed.) - Orlady (talk) 16:45, October 18, 2008 (UTC)

Now that all of these geographic NRHP categories are in the process of being renamed, can we at least add original history to them? ---- DanTD (talk) 15:37, October 26, 2008 (UTC)

I have submitted your question on Wikipedia: Category for discussion # History of category for category moved? --Orlady (talk) 19:45, October 26, 2008 (UTC)

Discussion of categories related to religion

Category: Registered Historic Sites of the religious function clearly need to be renamed. It currently contains over 600 entries, and is likely to grow substantially. Sites including churches, religious schools, synagogues, Native American ritual sites, burial grounds, monasteries, chapels, etc. Sub-categories can be created to break up a massive list, although most are "churches". So I propose only two new categories, with # 2 being subcategory # 1:

1. Category: Spirituality-related list on National Historic Places List
2. Category: Churches in the National Historic Site List

But what's wrong with "religion"? All types of properties that will easily be under it without arguments. What would "spirituality" include that religion would ignore? Wiktionary defines it partially as "Attention to the invisible and the unreal, which is contrary to the physical or the world." How many buildings/sites/districts/structures are included ? Will, say, Ralph Waldo Emerson's house be considered spiritual because, well, he must have a spiritual experience there? Walden Pond? Should we include every house of a religious leader under that category? As I understand the definition of spirituality, yes.

For "Place list", I think it's okay when you remember that "Place" is the last word in the adjective phrase, and not a noun in that construction. Daniel Case (talk) 02:19, October 21, 2008 (UTC)

I have no special problem with the word "religion" (or "belief", "spirituality" or "supernatural belief", for that matter), but your latest response intrigued me curiosity. I used Google for 0.19 seconds and found this, which indicates that what you think I meant might be true (though I did not actually think of it initially). Regarding the biographical house, I think Emerson is better known as a writer and poet rather than a religious/spiritual figure. However, if Edward Payson's home is on the Register, perhaps it should be in this category, since he is known primarily for his role as a preacher.-- Appraisers (talk) 14:35, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

If that happens, we may have to ask WP: IPNA would it be appropriate to register registered Native American sites because of their sacred aspect in the category under "Religion-related" cat parents.

As for Emerson, you lose my point. Emerson is known as a writer, but as Transcendentalist's Transcendentalist, many of his writings have a spiritual dimension, separate from the religious context. You can not talk about Emerson in depth without talking about it. Likewise, with Thoreau, who lulls himself in the forest by the pool for spiritual reasons. Daniel Case (talk) 13:52, October 22, 2008 (UTC)

What about this:

• Category: Sacred sites on National Historic Site List
  • Category: Churches on the National Historic Site List
    • Category: Cathedral in the National Historic Site List
    • Category: Chapel in National Historic Places List
    • Category: School of the church on National Historic Site List
    • Category: Recommendations on the National Historic Site List
    • Category: House of Meetings on National Historic Site List
  • Category: Funeral site in List of National Historic Sites
    • Category: Funeral site in National Historic Places List (for individual graves or other burial sites not defined as "graves")
    • Category: Burial on National Historic Places List (for places designated as "graves")
    • Category: Funeral cemetery in National Historic Places List
    • Category: Mortuaries in the National Historic Places List
  • Category: Mosque on National Historic Site List
  • Category: Native American sites on National Historic Site List
  • Category: Synagogues on National Historic Places List

etc. It will be possible to list not only the buildings but also where the buildings used to be, and anywhere where people regarded "sacred" regardless of whether the site accommodated religious dogma or not, "feel-good" is related to "spiritual", but some subcategories fall under several different major categories. CJLippert (talk) 18:33, October 22, 2008 (UTC)

Do you know what? I really think I like this, with some amendments. The memorial of the cat massacre must really be a subcat of the " Monuments and memorials on the National Register of Historic Places" (this seems to be the nomenclature received; then we can divide by war, with warnings for individuals, if desired). There are also some Monasteries in the National Register of Historic Places (like this one, for example).

Also, does the "house" in the use of "Meeting House" be capitalized in plural form? Daniel Case (talk) 03:20, October 25, 2008 (UTC)

CfD Notice for nerger of Category: List of Historic Sites Listed in Virginia

The subject category is a one-of-a-kind that I do not seem to need to keep, so I propose a merger on Wikipedia: Categories for discussion/Log/2008 October 22 # Category: List of Historic Sites Listed in Virginia. If you have an opinion, please state it there! --Orlady (talk) 04:02, October 22, 2008 (UTC)

Still need to rename the category to country list

Category: List of Historic Sites Registered by the state still needs a new name. My previous proposal Category: List by country list List of National Historic Sites go with dull duding. Here are some new ideas:

• Category: List of states from the National Historic Places list
• Category: List of National Historic Sites list by country

My preference is to Category: List of National Historic Sites by country (which may be confusingly close to Category: National Register of Historic Places by state), but I can easily imagine that others would have a better idea. --Orlady (talk) 19:51, October 26, 2008 (UTC)

Source of the article : Wikipedia